Unwanted penetration? Punish with castration

Corlyn Key

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Alabama state lawmaker, Steve Hurst, has proposed a law that would require repeat sex offenders whose victims are 12 and under to be surgically castrated.

I agree with him.

Hurst is not the first to propose such a drastic deterrent. In California, a similar law mandates that repeat offenders whose victims are under the age of 13 be chemically castrated upon parole.

Chemical castration injects the offender with a female hormone stimulant, reducing the testosterone levels. In theory, this reduces the male sex drive.

The problem with this approach is that once the offender misses an injection, his testosterone levels regulate and he regains his sexual urge.

Surgical castration is the removal of the testicles which house testosterone.

This limits the man’s sexual desire and overtime can remove it completely.

His proposal has sparked a heated debate on whether the punishment is too severe or not.

Yet those opposed to the law cannot seem to agree on a fitting punishment for rape.

If society wants to reduce the number of rapes, then it must come up with something that will effectively curb the desire to commit the crime.

Hurst’s proposal is not without fault. There have been case studies where surgically castrated men regain some sexual stimulation. But only 10 percent of those castrated men repeat the crime.

In order for society to fully eliminate the problem, I propose that we combine both procedures and see how they fare.

For those who still repeat the crime, I feel that they should be subjected to full penile removal.

This would be done using the techniques from gender reassignment surgery. It would allow them to have a functioning urethra, but no longer the ability to participate in sexual intercourse.

What about the female offenders?

For women offenders, again apply the techniques used in sexual reassignment.

Close the women’s vagina. Like male offenders, it would allow for a functioning urethra but prevent sexual intercourse.

Although these punishments seem harsh, and some may even say inhumane, isn’t that the point of punishment?

Punishments are supposed to deter people from repeating the crime. This means that the punishment should be so severe that the offender does not want to repeat their crime.

Or, be so horrendous that the crime never happens.

I support Hurst’s law and I do hope it passes. Although I would amend it to include all offenders no matter the age of their victim.

Rape has lasting effects on people no matter the age the rape is committed. It isn’t fair to have the victim scarred for life and not have the same thing for the offender.

If you disagree, ask yourself how you would feel knowing that your rapist was free to go out and attack someone again. Or maybe even come back and attack you.

Wouldn’t you feel safer knowing they could never hurt you or anyone else ever again?